Liggett Wins Blitch Tobacco Trial
Snapping a six-case plaintiff winning streak, Liggett Group, in a rare appearance as solo defendant in an Engle-progeny trial, prevailed in a case brought on behalf of smoker Betty Blitch.
In his closing statement, Wilner Hartley’s Woody Wilner urged the jury, when considering how much fault to assign to Ms. Blitch, to keep in mind that “This was a combined, massive effort to sell cigarettes, that Liggett belonged to, and everybody else belonged to. As we look under the door, and see the ugliness inside, this was the biggest conspiracy, the biggest public relations blitz in American history…And of course this was an industry that had the power to spend $250 billion dollars on advertising in this time period.”
For Liggett, Kasowitz Benson’s Kelly Luther argued that smoking did not cause Ms. Blitch’s esophageal cancer, and that smoking Liggett cigarettes definitely did not contribute to her esophogeal cancer. “Even if you were to remove all of Betty Blitch’s smoking, she had a substantial risk of going on to develop her esophogeal cancer because of the other risk factors that she had,” including alcohol use, cervical cancer, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
The jury found that Ms. Blitch was addicted to smoking, and the addiction to smoking was the legal cause of the cancer that caused her death. However, the jury also found that neither Liggett’s actions nor the defective nature of the cigarettes was a legal cause of Ms. Blitch’s death.
source: info.courtroomview.com
Similar Posts:
- Jacksonville tobacco cases clog dockets of courts
- Jurors award $2.4 million to Lake Worth widow of smoker
- $17.3 million verdict against Lorillard in Jacksonville, FL
- Tobacco verdict only $11K
- Defense Verdict in Oliva Tobacco Trial
Lawsuits | Cigarettes Store | admin | March 25, 2011
Blitch v. RJR, Engle Progeny, Products Liability, Tobacco Litigation, Toxic Torts
Loading ...
For a Jury NOT to find the tobacco companies liable in any fashion is not only questionable, but reckless. Smoking increases any person’s chance on getting cancer 100-fold. I am shocked that the jusry would return such an irresponsible verdict considering cigarettes are responsible for killing millions of people, yet their fancy-talking lawyers seem to punish the already victimized patient and family. Shame on all of the jury involved in this case for not considering ALL medical facts related to cigarette smoking. All I can say is Karma Karma Karma.